( 1 ) THIS revision under Section 19 of the Family Court Act arises from the judgment and order dated 16-2-1996. The Court below awarded a maintenance of Rs. 450/- per month to the present respondent who is a lady who had been married to the present revision petitioner on 3-5-1992. ( 2 ) THE case of the present respondent was that she married the present revision petitioner on 3-5-1992 and after marriage she had been to his place and lead married life for a period of one year and thereafter her husband began to pick up quarrels with her asking her to bring Rs. 10,000/- cash and two tolas of gold by way of dowry and on her refusal to do so, dragged her out of the house. She has also stated in the petition that at that time she was carrying by five months. Inspite of the best efforts made by the elders to take her back , her husband did not take her back and she states that her husband is a cruel man and she cannot lead a peaceful life with him and there is much danger to her life if she goes to her husband's house. She further says that her husband is a bailiff in the Munsiff Court at Badami and getting Rs. 2,000/- by way of salary. So, she prayed for a sum of Rs. 500/- as maintenance from her husband. ( 3 ) THE present revision petitioner was respondent before the Family Court. He appeared and filed his objections. He admitted that he was married to the petitioner i. e, the present respondent. He took the plea and stated in his objections that after divorce on 30-6-1992, she ceased to be his wife and denied other allegations made by the petitioner about demand of dowry and of he having desertged her after assulting her. He alleged that divorce having been given, the present opposite party i. e. the applicant in the maintenance application could not claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Act. ( 4 ) THE Family Court recorded a finding that the revision petitioner was entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 and as she was being treated cruelly and was driven out of the house, so there was no question of her sending back to the house of the respondent. The Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. ( 4 ) THE Family Court recorded a finding that the revision petitioner was entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 and as she was being treated cruelly and was driven out of the house, so there was no question of her sending back to the house of the respondent. The Court granted maintenance at the rate of Rs. 450/- per month taking the view that the respondent being bailiff was drawing more than Rs. 2,000/- per month. The allegation made in the maintenance application that the present revision petitioner was getting a salary more than Rs. 2,000/- does not appear to have been denied as a perusal of the copy of the objections reveals. The Court has granted the maintenance of Rs. 450/- in favour of the claimant. Feeling aggrieved from the order of the Family Court, the husband has come up in revision before this Court. ( 5 ) IT has been contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the Court below has no jurisdiction to entertain and to decide the application under Section 125, Cr. P. C. and could not grant maintenance in view of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, Act, No. 25 of 1986. The learned counsel made a reference to Section 5 of the above Act and made a reference to the decision of this Court in the case of Syed Kareem v. Zarina Bi reported in ILR (1992) Kant 822 as well as to another decision of this Court in the case of Mohammed Jahir v. Nazrath Fatima reported in ILR 1995 Kant 2259 in support of his contention that order of the Court below is without jurisdiction. ( 6 ) THE Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 may be applicable to the case of a divorced women and the principle relied or enunciated in that Act may be applicable to the case of a divorced woman including the one contained in Section 5 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. A reading of the provisions will per se reveal that it applies to the case of a divorced woman. Even the provision of option to be governed by the provisions of Section 125 to 128 of Act 2 of 1974 (Section 5) relates to the matters coming before the Court in relation to a divorced woman. A reading of the provisions will per se reveal that it applies to the case of a divorced woman. Even the provision of option to be governed by the provisions of Section 125 to 128 of Act 2 of 1974 (Section 5) relates to the matters coming before the Court in relation to a divorced woman. The sine qua non is divorced woman. If a person alleges that he had already divorced his wife, his mere allegation is not sufficient. First it is his duty to prove that he had divorced his wife in accordance with the principles of Muslim law as controlled and made applicable by the Constitution of India. Article 372, Clause (1) reads as under :-"article 372. Continuance in force of existing laws and their adaptation.- (1) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Constitution of the enactments referred to in Art. 395 but subject to the other provisions of this Constitution, all the laws in force in the terrirory of India immediately before the commencement of this Constitution shall continue in force therein until altered or repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other competent authority. " ( 7 ) THE preamble and basic structure of the Constitution cannot be altered. It ordines and gives assurance of dignity to all the individuals, whether the individual be he or she, and the basic principle of law which imposes fundamental duties on the citizens namely Art. 51a which says that it shall be the duty of every citizen of India apart from other things to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women. That question may have to be considered at proper stage, but the revision petitioner who alleges and pleads to have divorced the applicant who is claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P. C. , he has to first prove that he has divorced his wife accoding to the principles of Muslim Law subject to the basic of principles of Constitution. That question may have to be considered at proper stage, but the revision petitioner who alleges and pleads to have divorced the applicant who is claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr. P. C. , he has to first prove that he has divorced his wife accoding to the principles of Muslim Law subject to the basic of principles of Constitution. The scheme of Constitution contains preamble, fundamental rights, the directive principles and fundamental duties which includes the fundamental duty that it is the fundamental duty of every citizen to maintain the dignity of all individuals and to discard and renounce the practices derogatory to the dignity of woman and any earlier law running counter to the above or in conflict thereto cannot be deemed or taken to have been continued or allowed to continue after the enforcement of the Constitution under Art. 372. ( 8 ) IN the present case, the burden was on the present revision petitioner to have established and proved that the claimant - applicant was a divorced woman and she had been given the divorce. Nowhere it has been stated and no evidence has been led by the revision petitioner before the Family Court to prove and show that the claimant was a divorced woman. Therefore, without going into the question of choice or option as to the applicability of Section 125 to 128, Cr. P. C. in view of Act No. 25 of 1986, in the present case really when the present respondent i. e. the claimant petitioner has not been established to be a divorced woman, she had been entitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr. P. C. , being a wife and not being a divorced woman as she had not been establishd to be a divorced woman and the Court below had passed the maintenance order in favour of the claimant before it after having found that she had been treated cruelly and driven out cruelly, in my opinion, the order Court below granting maintenance cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The Court below, in my opinion, on the above reasoning had competence jurisdiction to award the maintenance order. No other point has been pressed. Revision is dismissed. The order of the Court below is maintained. The revision petitioner is expected to pay entire maintenance amount upto date within one month. The Court below, in my opinion, on the above reasoning had competence jurisdiction to award the maintenance order. No other point has been pressed. Revision is dismissed. The order of the Court below is maintained. The revision petitioner is expected to pay entire maintenance amount upto date within one month. Otherwise, it is open to the present respondent to proceed with execution of maintenance order. Revision dismissed. --- *** --- .